Monica Leech, George Mordaunt etc on Prime Time Tuesday 12 March

Mr Mordaunt is no different to any other person looking for a deal - they have to re-adjust their spending and lifestyle. That includes living in a normal house. I was obviously mistaken that that was the point he was making on Prime Time! Obvioulsy he also feels hard done by the support and forebearance of his bank through his difficult times. And there was me thinking you were grateful George!

Two adults and two children in a 3 bed semi D, I grew up in a 3 bed semi D, 2 adults and 3 children. Our neighbors had 6 children. Who does he thinks lives in 3 bed semi Ds.

We didn't have Sky sports either. Sounds a bit like the woman "cramped" in the 4 seasons with her 2 children, dogs and parrots.

I've heard George Mordaunt speaking before. He has lost properties and some of his previous businesses.
He was also very depressed about things when the writing was on the wall. But he recovered himself and is fighting his own battles with the banks.
He could take the easy insolvency route but he is continuing to try and run a business and live his life.
I know people who have lost their family homes and property in previous bad times and it leaves a permanent scar on their lives.

RichInSpirit said:

.
I know people who have lost their family homes and property in previous bad times and it leaves a permanent scar on their lives.

Click to expand...

I also know people who fought tooth and nail against repossessions sheriffs etc. and held onto their property.

Hi Brendan i heard you on the radio on Saturday and i nearly fell off the chair when George mourdant said his piece about 4 people expected to live in a semi d with only 3 bedrooms .
I was cringing for him when you challenged him about his trophy house, he did not expect that line of questioning . I was disappointed with the panel though as i felt he was not challenged on the issue. So well done for bringing up the issue

reddanmm said:

Hi Brendan i heard you on the radio on Saturday and i nearly fell off the chair when George mourdant said his piece about 4 people expected to live in a semi d with only 3 bedrooms .

Click to expand...

Thanks red

I had planned to say that people should be required to sell their trophy homes and move into a 3 bed semi-d , so it was astonishing when he dismissed the idea before I had even proposed it. In fact, I had wondered if I had misheard him.

On The Late Debate Caroline Lenny Nally refused to pay interest-only on her mortgage as it would make her a "glorified renter".

I think we have become so used to hear about the banks' supposedly unreasonable behaviour that people are indignant when the banks are perfectly reasonable such as asking a family of 4 to move into a three bed semi-d.

Brendan

George mordaunt is very selective with his disclosure. If you check his public twitter account you will find that AIB obviously sanctioned a trip to Old Trafford so not only are the posters still on the wall ~ they are probably autographed! Well done Brendan for exposing this hypocrisy.

I listened to the podcast.

I completely get why he would not talk about his own personal circumstances as he is in confidential negotiations with is bank so that is fair enough.

Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely.

I imagine the home was a deal breaker for him. (I have my own theory on that - marriage over if home lost). But he probably said to the bank, I'll do my best to repay but you've got to let me stay in the family home. And why not. If the bank are ok with it we should be too. We have got to incentivise people to get back on track.

I also admire him for helping others. And he was unable to tell us fully (due to time constraints) and it would have been interesting but he is dealing with other businessmen in their tough negotiations with banks. Either we say it's good to negotiate and get back something for the banks/taxpayers or we watch as ever more entreprenurs head ot the UK with a zero result for us all. And the badly needed skills of these businesspeople will be lost. I did not hear the man complain about his own situation, he didn't ask for debt write down for all as some others are constantly doing. And if I understand him correctly the people dealing with the banks are in extemely stressful situations. Sometimes suicidal. And we don't want any more of those either.

The only people I've seen stay in large homes are the wonderful developers who have gone UK bankrupt and miraculously transferred assets into wives names etc and who seemingly can continue the same lifestyle as previously. I'm going to reserve my ire for those and the won't pays.

Bronte said:

Monica Leech was on a very interesting current affairs programme with Pat Kenny (it had a segment about Irish later). I've no idea what Ms. Leech is about but it seemed like nonsense to me.

But there was one exceedingly interesting man in the audience. He was what I call a realist. He had come to an arrangement with his own bank, a very tough deal, I could feel the pain of it (but I'm emotive) and he was a good person I thought too in that he was helping many others to deal with banks. He seemed to know his stuff. A lot of people like David Hall, Maguire, Leech seem to be on a band wagon, but it's rhetoric I think, and they keep going on about debt forgiveness for all without saying that we tax payers are going to pay for it.

This audience member is at the coal face and to his credit he did not complain, just simply told the reality of dealing with cold bankers. His own arrangement is completely confidential, he had to sign a non-disclosure document (I presume the one that SF have been hopping up and down about). From him I've learnt that every penny of what you take in and go out will be scrutinised and they will dictate what you can and cannot purchase (he mentioned as an example Sky). That is the reality of dealing with banks .

Click to expand...

If you're clueless.

Monica is starting to steal a bit of the available airtime from David Hall et al. She was on George Hook this evening debating against Moore McDowell today's story in the Indo about people getting mortgage deals having to lose the 2nd car, stop private schools etc.
When it was put to her that if you were to get a a deal, that you then should'nt be spending on items like that, she said people shouldn't be judged on how they spend their money....people had various reasons for sending kids to private schools and so be it. That should have nothing to do with the terms of a deal.

Bronte said:

As you've said FLAC are a responsible and respectable organisation. And people in debt need people on their side. It's a pity that they are not in the media more often but maybe they are too busy dealing with reality instead of becoming media prima donnas.

Click to expand...

I take back my comments on FLAC. After hearing Noleen Blackwell on Pat Kenny yesterday, another pointless body of no real help to people in debt and haven't a clue. What hope is there for people with that and the likes of Monica Leech and her theory that a philantropist like those in Haiti (I think it's Haiti) is needed to sort out debt problems for people.

Bronte said:

Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely.

I imagine the home was a deal breaker for him. (I have my own theory on that - marriage over if home lost). But he probably said to the bank, I'll do my best to repay but you've got to let me stay in the family home. And why not. If the bank are ok with it we should be too. We have got to incentivise people to get back on track.

Click to expand...

Were we listening to the same show? There are a huge amount of assumptions made by you here.

WaterWater said:

Were we listening to the same show? There are a huge amount of assumptions made by you here.

Click to expand...

My brain is obviously wired differently because you're at least the third person that's hinted I'm getting it wrong on this guy. Even Burgess tackled him. What am I missing.

Bronte said:

Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely.

.

Click to expand...

Hi Bronte

My view is very clear. Even if someone has made mistakes, maybe even if they have been reckless, if they engage in good faith with the bank, they deserve a fresh start. That goes for the big property developers as well, by the way.

I might even live with them retaining their trophy home which is why I kicked off a discussion "Is there a case for an insolvent person staying in the family trophy home?"

My problem with George is that he still has the big house but talks on Prime Time about the terrible pain he has gone through including getting rid of Sky. Something just does not add up here.

Good to know that George is Back in the Driving Seat

George has just launched his second book, 'Back in the Driving Seat', a sequel to the much acclaimed Shepherd’s Pie, which received international media attention for its excruciating honesty on how recession devastated his business and personal life and his first steps to recovery. 'Back in the Driving Seat' is a natural follow on, written in response to the phenomenal reaction that George received from other business people who were privately suffering, people who were inspired by his story and were seeking help and advice on how they too could be an active participant in their own recovery, a mantra that George lives by.

Click to expand...

you can't keep a good 'entrepreneur' down!

George was on Today with Pat Kenny on Monday
It's 16 minutes long

The following are extracts - not a complete transcript.

3.20 Pat: You say that it's only a matter of time before someone takes a case against a bank for the suicide of a loved one.
George: I have come through a debt resolution process

5.07 George: Youve got bankruptcy. Youv'e got personal insolvency. There is a third choice - one to one resolution. Back in the Driving Seat is about evoking your own Chapter 11. Don't go bankrupty. Don't go personal insolvency. Evoke your own Chapter 11.
In Americal it's one year. In Ireland , because of Begrudgery it's 3 years for bankruptcy, or it would be 6 years in my case, because it would be a PIA.
Pat: So have you avoided that?
George: Yes I have.

6.33 Pat: There is a code of conduct which was issued by the Central Bank in 2009 very interesting
George: and revised in 2011.
People in SMEs are entitled to a whole load of rights. For example, you can decide how many times a month a bank can contact you
You can sit with your bank official and you can determine quite a lot with that official as long as you are open and transparent and they must reciprocate that.
A lot of people who are struggling who are under pressure with banks, not having researched the code who don't understand that they can protect themselves and that they don't know that they can control the situation

Pat: So what other protections besides
George: The bank can't touch you until you are in arrears over 90 days. You are not officially in arrears until 90 days. And once you make a formal commitment to make any element of a payment and you can justify it's back to the Chapter 11 issue
Pat: if you can justify that it's sustainable
George - absolutely and they have got to give you the time and the space to process that.

Pat : So why are SMEs using this

George: Because people haven't educated themselves. The press haven't picked up on it the way that they should

The question you must ask yourself as a business man or even as a homeowner is "What is it you are prepared to do in order to survive?"
e ?
So I evoked my decision to invoke my Chapter 11

Pat: So talk to me about your ethical dilemma. Where ethically have you strayed where you would not have strayed before?
(9 minutes) George: Park one company on a Friday evening and open a new one on a Monday morning
Pat: Which you would not have done before

George: I needed to improve the quality of my life
I had to force the issue with the bank through bankruptcy, through foreclosure or through an agreed process

If I had a debt laden company, which I did, that had to be dumped
Pat: But you had the protection of limited liability?
George: Yes I did
Pat: What do you say to people who would say : Look you have written off your debt, so you have managed to escape your debt. in the case of a limited company by limited liability and by a personal resolution process, you have managed to write off some debt.
But the state owned banks - that is the taxpayer paying for your debt.
11.00 George: I will continue to pay for my debts for many many years, and so be it, that's the way it should be
If we do not evoke a Ch 11 type process

Pat: you had this company which you decided to shut down. It owed the Revenue a lot of money. It owed creditors a lot of money . You start a new company doing exactly what the old company did.

George: I should say that the secured creditors were the only people who were affected. That is very important. Because there were suppliers of mine that were families and they had to be looked after.

It was't the same as the old compay. We have reinvented the wheel.

Pat: so you have a new business plan... Some of the checklist: Decide which staff you want to rehire. Decide what salaries you would like to pay them. Decide which clients you are keeping. Advise your landlord that you are terminating the lease. Tell your staff you can't pay redundancy - tell them how to claim their statutory.
(At14.0) Call a Creditors Meeting for a Friday evening for somewhere which will take an effort to get to - That is dirty tricks. You have justified why you have done that, because it gets you back to work.

George: I must stress that for many years, a decade at the very minimum , I will continue to fund my mistakes from the past.

he gets some airtime from rte

he has just 'completed a debt resolution programme' and 'the banks have shared the pain with him' so that could explain the old company closing and new one opening. But the old company has'nt being liquidated.
Didn't hear mention of downsizing from the big country house or driving an old and ordinary car.
As for moral hazard 'if we don't let the entrepreneurs flourish in this country....allowing people like me to get back to work and start employing people again' the country will never get going again.

Pat Kenny really pushing the 'debate' on debt, especially mortgage debt whenever he gets a chance

That is an extraordinary interview from so many angles.

His advice seems contradictory and very poor

In America it's one year. In Ireland , because of Begrudgery it's 3 years for bankruptcy, or it would be 6 years in my case, because it would be a PIA.
Pat: So have you avoided that?
George: Yes I have.

...
11.00 George: I will continue to pay for my debts for many many years, and so be it, that's the way it should be
...
I must stress that for many years, a decade at the very minimum , I will continue to fund my mistakes from the past.

Click to expand...

Would bankruptcy not be a much better option? 3 years versus at least 10 years.

What is the SME Code he is talking about?

6.33 Pat: There is a code of conduct which was issued by the Central Bank in 2009 very interesting
George: and revised in 2011.
People in SMEs are entitled to a whole load of rights. For example, you can decide how many times a month a bank can contact you

George: Because people haven't educated themselves. The press haven't picked up on it the way that they should

Click to expand...

Is a company allowed pay some creditors but not others?

George: I should say that the secured creditors were the only people who were affected. That is very important. Because there were suppliers of mine that were families and they had to be looked after.

Click to expand...

Did he pay the woman who won compensation for unfair dismissal?
Did he pay the Revenue?

The company is still listed on the CRO website. There is no liquidator appointed.

he's 'writing' his own laws!